> Our station remains inaccessible

Every station in Astoria on the N was renovated over the past few years and just one out of six got an elevator added. Add onto this that of thirteen stations on the local M/R in Queens, just three are accessible. There's so much more work to do, especially in the outerboros. At least Queensboro is finally getting one soon.

It is hard for me to be grateful when for us in Queens we were fucked with bad weekend service for what seemed like literally 2 years nonstop due to replacement lol

What's the problem then? I figure it's that despite the size of the loop we outside of vehicles are still given a paltry amount of actual car free space to be active in, so we're getting these unfortunate interactions due to mixing modes. Partially mixed use paths can be notoriously tense due to mixing different usages and the sheer demand we have here in the park for the space.

Proposed plans for reconstruction will completely remove the cantilever and build in-place a simple box structure to support the roadways. Much easier and simpler to maintain and weight is less of a concern.

We truthfully can't accommodate every single trip, so there may not be an answer you or others like unfortunately to this question. There's still an entire network of roads to drive wherever you want, so would it be impossible, no, could it take longer depending where you are coming from? Yes. I am sure there are residents all over the place who would want a better route to their out of city destination but that's just not possible. I myself for example wish I didn't tend to take Ubers to certain transit routes due to the annoyance of getting to the station, but I know that's just how it is due to where I chose to live.

Didn't it stop running due to headway issues with the QB line (already many trains?) Maybe the situation is different now that I get literally one fucking R train per 15 minutes lol, would be curious about a feasibility study on re-activating service.

Well to many folks, abortion is seen as a right and should be free from government interference. In this case I am sorry to say that parking illegally is not a debatably constitutionally protected right and therefore I think many people have zero qualms pointing out this behavior to the authorities lol

It makes zero sense, there is NO justification to "phase" this in. It's literally digital, not some "we need to test physical changes to the street" situation or pilot program.

One can support inducing different things. Inducing transit ridership for example usually is looked at as a positive.

Sure thing, to start off with: council district. One can enter their address here on this map to find their district: https://council.nyc.gov/map-widget/

On the map the results will show your councilperson and a direct link to your district's website (every district has one) that includes information on your councilperson and how to contact their office. All council emails are generally "District#@council.nyc.gov" (replace # with your number). This is the constituent email for residents of the districts to email questions, concerns, etc. and a member of the councilperson's team should get back to you.

A similar process can be followed for New York State Assemblymen and State Senator Districts. These are who represent you in the state government, not to be confused with federal level congresspersons and senators that go to DC.

Assembly: https://nyassembly.gov/mem/search/ Senators: https://www.nysenate.gov/find-my-senator

And finally! Your congressperson: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

I can't find this specific bill (I hate when journalists fail to include the actual bill info), but you can find proposed and passed legislation here: https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/Legislation.aspx

You can see the votes along various stages of bills, sponsors, etc. This bill supposedly is under Parks & Rec committee but I can't even find it under that so that could be misreporting for all I know.

I imagine the average person here has no idea which council district they are in, let alone that they even have a councilperson, or a state congressperson for that matter lol

What's selfish is the amount of money and land devoted to car infrastructure that is the least efficient and most polluting mode of transportation on earth lol. It's questionable if what is paid even comes close to the "real cost". 247 people were killed in traffic crashes last year, has that cost been reflected in the tolls and taxes? I'm willing to bet no.

> well as long as it doesn't affect me fick em

That's funny cause that seems to be the attitude of many car drivers in this city, when we propose anything that might inconvenience them.

> congestion is brought in by people who don't live there

No, congestion is caused by too many cars on the road regardless who is driving. Just cause I live somewhere and drive doesn't mean I'm magically not part of the problem.

> People who live in the zone

The zone also literally has the most subway transit in the entire country, am I supposed to feel bad wealthy residents want the subway and a car but feel inconvenienced driving? I would love to live where they live but wow shocker I can't afford it. Let's not be so greedy here, or overestimate the imagined suffering of people able to not only live in some of the most desirable areas in the city but also afford a car. I don't even live in Manhattan and couldn't afford car payments or insurance even if I wanted, sorry but I'm not exactly gonna weep for this "plight"

> Couldn't you force trucks onto Furman street

Potentially, but the turn at Old Fulton may be problematic for trucks, it would need to be studied. Any truck diversion route would of course get pushback from local communities as well, complicating the problem. Trucks going northbound on Furman can't re-enter the BQE until Sands Street, which again could be problematic but may be the best option.

> So build a new temporary trucks only road through the park.

Definitely not possible, Parks dept would absolutely not allow destruction of park property for such a use case, nor is park land suitable for trucks. It may also be impossible given the terrain and geography of the park, as well as multiple buildings in the way. I think 'environmental disaster' would be the headlines used for such a proposal lol. Much of the park includes piers and water front activities that should remain accessible regardless of construction, so it's not as if the park will be vacated.

The scope of Congestion Pricing was decided to fall under NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the government eventually decided that an EA was necessary. With NEPA, you must perform a study to create what is called an Environmental Assessment (EA) or, in the most stringent cases, an Environmental Impact Statement. These studies qualify and quantify what impacts, if any, your project has on various aspects of the environment and population. You submit your study and then await a decision, the end goal being a FONSI, or "finding of no significant impact" which will allow you to proceed with your project. They can be quite extensive and costly to perform, often at thousands of pages in length with up to 20 appendices. EAs and EIS are quite common for major projects and developments, NYC has its own processes related to NEPA, called CEQR: City Environmental Quality Review, as well as a state version called SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review).

You can read more about NEPA here: https://www.epa.gov/nepa
CEQR: https://www.nyc.gov/site/oec/environmental-quality-review/ceqr-basics.page
CEQR process: https://www.nyc.gov/site/planning/applicants/environmental-review-process.page
SEQR: https://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/357.html

Don't mean that, no. I mean a physical building. Amazon, unfortunately, uses trucks as the logistics center and will have up to a dozen workers unpack and sort the contents right there in the street or sidewalk and often, as you mention, block bike lanes, bus lanes, or the road itself. There is some discussion about moving this behavior to actual logistics centers, and discussions about zoning that would allow this, since "warehousing" is technically a different zone type then retail. In the case of Whole Foods, however, they park bikes outside the store where they load them and send them out, that's the more ideal model, or if they were to rent space to use as storage hubs. I'm opposed to their truck model, unless, they can park it safely. That's another discussion though about curb management.

I can see the appeal of not adding an exemption for residents. I mean, I have to pay a fee to go home too, on the subway. There's no exemption for traveling on the subway just because you live somewhere specific, is there? Makes sense in some ways to apply that logic to this too

Indeed, he would have been better as the spokesperson. He and even the mayor himself, from my perspective, either ignored or underestimated what running agencies the size NYC has. Bloomberg excelled at prioritizing projects due to his business empire experience. NYCDOT alone has 5,500 employees, you need someone who understands how to run it, how to allot and manage resources, on top of at least understanding or committing to understanding urban planning and engineering. From everything I've heard, DOT right now is lacking this, and not being run efficiently, and is also hemorrhaging staff due to wider issues as well.

> but 20 minutes out of a day isn't congestion

Not quite how it works. Your commute time is irrelevant, if you try to drive down a road that's already at capacity, you are adding to congestion and queues. I will give you props pointing out Uber (aka For-Hire-Vehicles), they have been studied indeed as a major source of congestion because they circle the network looking for fares. Congestion pricing under several proposed scenarios will NOT exempt them, however, which would help address this.

> Who the hell wants congestion prices

For one I imagine the folks living in the CBD who deal with the congestion every day where they live. The concept behind this scheme is that it should cost money to go into one of the densest and most transit connected places in the entire country. The system has dual goals of raising money for the MTA while also reducing vehicle volume on the over-capacity streets in the CBD. The working class takes transit, I don't deny some drive, but the volume inbound pales in comparison to the millions entering via transit from the region. Certain opponents love to make this "working class" argument, strangely, when the majority are on transit and this would directly benefit them. Obviously if I was in your position I wouldn't want to pay either, but it is what it is eh?

FHVs are a large source of congestion yes. Not all the toll scenarios will exempt or cap them. When the draft EA was opened to public comment I sent in my support for Scenario A which has NO exemptions and encouraged others to do the same. The system will be tested if we end up with many exemptions, caps, or credits and leaves others to pay more to cover the exemptions.

Hmm alright then

Article mentions emergency egress shafts, yes, says they would need 4k sq ft for it.

HOT lanes are simple in nature compared to tolling an entire portion of the city. Volume at entrance and exit is one dataset, what about everything in between? The grid is massive, is just checking toll gantries sufficient? Some may say no, I'd tend to agree. Volume inbound alone doesn't necessarily paint the whole picture of what "congestion" is happening inside the cordon. Might not work out so well, or maybe it would, it's very hard to tell which is probably why it was not considered due to the complexity. Nothing about measuring congestion in the CBD is simple, trust me on that one, the traffic on the street grid is probably one of the most complex systems in the entire city.

I don't think it's the end of the story when that doesn't seem to be the MTA's goal with the study. If that were the case they would have studied more aggressive scenarios. Who is "they" in your proposition exactly?